Somewhat surprising to me, he gets no credit from
the mgts for his role in capturing the federal judiciary when imo he did much more than Trump to make that happen.
The evidentiary rules that Barrett objected to are the single most radical and extreme part of this decision – they fundamentally contradict the rules of evidence in our entire justice system. Furthermore, she put in her concurring opinion a very broad definition of unofficial acts. Remember that we’re dealing with politicians in robes here and that includes some big time horse-trading about opinions and who joins what when. I think it’s quite likely that she only joined the majority in order to get that unofficial acts definition in a concurrence.